|
|
Groovy
Hired Hero
|
posted June 01, 2022 06:54 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
And "calculated risks" are not strategy, but gambling. As it is a calculated risk to attack "many" without further information, when a certain formation or a number above 40 or so will give me a lot of trouble, but the gain will be "worth" it.
That isn't STRATEGY.
I’m not sure that I follow your reasoning. Both Heroes and SoC require you to make assumptions about what you’ll encounter on the map and what other players are doing, which sometimes only becomes apparent when it’s too late to take corrective action. If this is gambling rather than strategy, then we are limiting the concept of strategy to games like chess, where there’s no randomness and everything is visible.
What I was trying to point out is that, with SoC as it is now, one can reliably predict how a game will play out before playing it. So why play it at all? If you could predict the moves of a chess game before it’s played, would you then go ahead and play it?
Chess relies on pitting players against one another to make each game unpredictable and interesting. So do SoC and Heroes, but Heroes can also use the game world to accomplish the same – the game itself presents the player with novel challenges that make gameplay interesting. SoC’s game world can’t do this to nearly the same extent. Coupled with a weak AI, this greatly reduces the game’s replayability.
It really looks to me like SoC was designed specifically for multiplayer.
By the way, Cloak of the Undead King is a game winner only if you are playing Necropolis. If the undead are not your main forces, then it’s not so clear.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2022 08:57 PM |
|
|
Groovy said:
I’m not sure that I follow your reasoning. Both Heroes and SoC require you to make assumptions about what you’ll encounter on the map and what other players are doing, which sometimes only becomes apparent when it’s too late to take corrective action. If this is gambling rather than strategy, then we are limiting the concept of strategy to games like chess, where there’s no randomness and everything is visible.
What I was trying to point out is that, with SoC as it is now, one can reliably predict how a game will play out before playing it. So why play it at all? If you could predict the moves of a chess game before it’s played, would you then go ahead and play it?
Chess relies on pitting players against one another to make each game unpredictable and interesting. So do SoC and Heroes, but Heroes can also use the game world to accomplish the same – the game itself presents the player with novel challenges that make gameplay interesting. SoC’s game world can’t do this to nearly the same extent. Coupled with a weak AI, this greatly reduces the game’s replayability.
First of all you are wrong about chess. New moves are happening rarely, and when a game starts the good players know what is possible, for a lot of turns. In the stages of the first dozen and even more turns, people know all the options they have - they don't "invent" anything.
And regular Homm, at least, doesn't present any challenges for the veteran HoMM player anymore, because the AI isn't really good, the main problem being hero development.
You might want to test your theory by playing the 6-player SoC regular skirmish map as one of the two Loth/undead faction players, and then tell me afterwards whether you could reliably predict how the game would turn out and whether your prediction was right.
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted June 01, 2022 11:17 PM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 23:22, 01 Jun 2022.
|
Saying that "gamblin" and strategy" are opposites is not understanding what strategy OR gambling is.
Gambling can easily have strategy.
Let's take the example of chess, a deterministic game if there ever was any.
However, many of que moves are called "gambits", such as the risky "Queen's Gambit"
They are gambits, because they are moves with a calculated risk, that you don't know if they will pay off or not, according to the unpredictable moves of the other player - will they take the bait and what will follow? The human mind cannot predict all possible courses of action thus it's interesting.
if SoC is predictable, at least against the AI, and has an also predictable game world without things such as andom Mage Guilds and Artifact Merchants and Quests and Etc., there is no gambit. As you said so yourself there is no calculated risk, thus you have nothing to lose, and this diminishes investment in the game.
Great generals like Napoleon and Hannibal were characterized by their risky moves that didn't have a guaranteed payoff. Tis was the way they outmaneuvered their enemies. Seems like SoC plays like a spreadsheet and thus lacks the excitement and unpredictability of actual war and combat. If cnditions are always quasi-randomly changing, then there is an additional complexity because there are also emergent costs of opportunity and the possibility of unknown factors to take into account. You cannot count that everything will go "according to plan".
Perhaps you like, in contrast, this predictability, but it doesn't make the game objectively better - at least not compared to changing conditions with an infinity of variations. Remember the stale deterministic H6 hero progression.
____________
Never changing = never improving
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 01, 2022 11:34 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
A gambit in chess is something the opponent may decline...
Calculated risk means going with the percentage. It IS gambling, but of course a game that lives off of probabilities IS a game of calculated risk. HoMM IS a game of calculated risk (and SoC as well) - that's no strategy. The strategy here is accepting that it is and play with the percentage - or play AGAINST it in certain situations.
But that is CASINO strategy.
And before you get into it - play the game, THEN talk about it.
|
|
purerogue
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 12:29 AM |
|
|
Playing against non-computer (ie. a "person") is the difference.
A person does whatever they want whereas a computer can only be logical.
Thus, in the strictest sense, there is no '"gaming" (or feinting) a computer.
Gambits always fail against a computer because it doesn't even know you're making one. 
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 05:18 AM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 05:27, 02 Jun 2022.
|
And that's my point. Since the AI is predictable, and the whole rest of the game is mostly predictable as well, there is no real risk and there is no real adventure when single player SoC.
H3 even has three different radomly assigned AI personalities. But even beyond that, yes the AI is also limited and classical algorithmic models will ever be so.
So, the variaton is introduced in the game via enviromental variables:
- Skill level up choice.
- Mage guild/shrine spells.
- "Week of" and "Month of".
- Random monsters.
- Refugee camps.
- Heroes for hire at taverns.
- Artifacts and artifact merchants.
And so on and so forth...
Without these enviromental variables the game is much more spell and it loses variety and replayability in exchange for only being more "predictable".
In PvP this may be more "balanced"; but in PvE it is only boring and makes each game more alike the previous and the next in that you can optimize everything without significant uncertainty.
Thus you lose anxiety for the future as you already know what will happen next and there is no game elements that can disrupt it...
Enviromental variables force you to change and adapt your strategy in accordance to unforeseen events, as for example hire a Necro hero if there is a Diplomacy witch hut and Month of the Wight, and change that to your main strategy; or, to forego your fast assault strategy if the enemy hero happens to have expert earth and slow, while you didn't get the expert air and haste; instead going for ranged or magic damage. Such as in mass exctinction events in reality, diversification of strategies pay off in the face of unpredictable threats. I'd argue H3 randomness is more true to life, which is seldom or never a closed system, than a closed fully deterministic game.
____________
Never changing = never improving
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 08:05 AM |
|
|
|
Which game are you talking about?
|
|
Groovy
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 08:23 AM |
|
Edited by Groovy at 08:27, 02 Jun 2022.
|
JollyJoker said:
First of all you are wrong about chess. New moves are happening rarely, and when a game starts the good players know what is possible, for a lot of turns. In the stages of the first dozen and even more turns, people know all the options they have - they don't "invent" anything.
And regular Homm, at least, doesn't present any challenges for the veteran HoMM player anymore, because the AI isn't really good, the main problem being hero development.
You might want to test your theory by playing the 6-player SoC regular skirmish map as one of the two Loth/undead faction players, and then tell me afterwards whether you could reliably predict how the game would turn out and whether your prediction was right.
New moves are played in almost all chess games. The only exception I can think of are grandmaster draws where they replay a well-known opening line that ends in a quick draw. Those games are generally hated by the chess-viewing public and are most certainly not interesting.
Don’t forget that amateurs play chess, too.
I think that you are confusing a challenge with the likelihood of losing a game. Challenges come in many forms. I’ve played numerous HoMM games just to see what combination of heroes, towns, artefacts and spells I’d get to play with this time around, and how well I could adjust my strategy to make optimal use of them, without the question of defeating the AI being in serious doubt.
If I find the motivation to play SoC again, I’ll try a Loth player on the Conquest map.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 09:07 AM |
|
|
What you say sounds to me like this: If I play a card game the challenge lies in always getting a different hand and play the best way with it - knowing opponent will fumble theirs, no matter how good they are.
For me that's not challenge - that's playing a boring game and desperately trying not to bebored.
The "challenge" depends on how good the AI is. (Not only true in SP, but also in MP, the tactical AI.) How good means, how predictable it is, because predictability makes it exploitable. The HoMM 3 AI is very predictable. But the really bad thing is, that it's predictably BAD. It cannot build heroes in the strategic department. You are never faced with a mass spell, except when you play a map specifically built with pre-made ones. When you see high-level AI heroes you'd think they had some secret code to always pick the worst skill possible.
In SoC the content is currently limited and the overall AI is currently bad. Battles, are tricky, though, and fun. Mixed guarding stacks (a H4 achievement and sadly not in H3) are cool. The fact that waiting is possible only with a few select units, the fact that it takes time to collect essence and to be able to cast spells and more time to cast the powerful ones, the fact that you need to consider your troops very carefully... You have losses when you are forced to fight because their is no other way to move.
That's why I said you should play that map. You really have to work on it to get something going.
|
|
Groovy
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 03:16 PM |
|
|
I think I understand where you are coming from. Am I correct to assume that you wouldn’t be interested in playing Minecraft in creative mode, or Dorfromantik for the beauty of landscape patterns?
JollyJoker said:
What you say sounds to me like this: If I play a card game the challenge lies in always getting a different hand and play the best way with it - knowing opponent will fumble theirs, no matter how good they are.
The first part is mostly correct. It’s a challenge that I find stimulating, but not the only one.
The second part is incorrect. Weak opponents are not a plus, and definitely not a requirement.
Ideally I’d like a game to present both opponent and environmental challenges that supplement each other to make it really stimulating.
JollyJoker said:
That's why I said you should play that map. You really have to work on it to get something going.
I did start it and got to turn 25 before I just couldn’t force myself to continue – far enough to see that the map is really difficult, and that it forces you to work for every scrap of resources. This makes it a challenge, but not a replayable one, at least not beyond needing several attempts to get the right gold-troop balance and build order.
While I think I understand what you find challenging in a game, I don’t understand why you’d think that SoC has high replayability (if you think that).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 02, 2022 03:54 PM |
|
|
Groovy said:
I think that you are confusing a challenge with the likelihood of losing a game. Challenges come in many forms. I’ve played numerous HoMM games just to see what combination of heroes, towns, artefacts and spells I’d get to play with this time around, and how well I could adjust my strategy to make optimal use of them, without the question of defeating the AI being in serious doubt.
That's what you said in your second last post. If the question of defeating the AI is never in serious doubt, then I don't see much replay value, except when the game offers you tons of opportunities to err and screw something up. I think that's why roguelikes are popular: the AI is simply on another level than you. Anyway, I take it then that you play with random settings. If Soc will get those - and I don't doubt there will be those - you can play random there as well, and depending on the town you are playing the spells you cast will differ. Artifacts will differ as well, hero you get randomly as well.
And the point of the map you started isn't to force you to restart a couple of times, but to see how far you come and whether you win or lose.
In the time before I stopped playing HoMM 3 I was always picking the worst hero for main - Eagle Eye specialists, if possible, you know, Piquedram with Tower and so on and was debating with me whether I should allow myself to make whatever better hero would be lurking in the Tavern my man guy or whether I shouldn't.
But that makes it more like a puzzle game: handicap yourself as much as possible to give the AI a headstart.
Another way is to play small maps (impossible difficulty is a must anyway) or medium maps with many players.
I mean, why would I play a game when I know exactly what I have to pick to win. Big map? Of course you win. Is it fun? No. Or maybe, yes, ONCE, because you may not know the map and it may be an interesting one. But after that? Nah. So you have to pick the right ingredients to make it interesting - to give yourself a chance to lose. With that comes replay value. For me.
|
|
louweed
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 12:48 AM |
|
|
I just have to interject
JollyJoker said:
If the question of defeating the AI is never in serious doubt, then I don't see much replay value
I mean really
Why run a marathon, if you know you're going to finish? Why attempt a crossword, if you know you're going to solve it? Why play that level of Celeste (an A+ platformer) again, if you already beat it 100 times already? Why play The Devil Is In The Detail (Hota map, most replayable, highly recommend) again?
The challenge is not in winning, but how well you can win - dunno about this SoC, but for HoMM3, that's how many days, castles captured, grail recovered etc. Actually winning is just the minimum requirement
|
|
The_Green_Drag
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 04:27 AM |
|
|
I don’t really like the conquest map tbh. Not a big fan of a lot of the official maps actually. I’m hoping they make some more open, larger maps. That’s actually why I ended up making some maps myself.
I have two in particular on there called “Warlords” and “Ancient Ruins” that have been received pretty well. If anyone wants a more open challenging map.
I also remade a heroes 2 map, “Broken Alliance”, which converted over nicely. It’s pretty tough too.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 07:25 AM |
|
|
Good to know. 
|
|
Groovy
Hired Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 07:45 AM |
|
Edited by Groovy at 07:45, 03 Jun 2022.
|
JollyJoker said:
…With that comes replay value. For me.
Thank you. I understand exactly where you are coming from now.
JollyJoker said:
In the time before I stopped playing HoMM 3 I was always picking the worst hero for main - Eagle Eye specialists, if possible, you know, Piquedram with Tower and so on…
I couldn’t bring myself to do that. Such a blemish on my main hero would bug me no end.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 08:06 AM |
|
|
It was a natural development. After I had made a Straker map defending the "useless" Zombie specialist - you may want to check that map, "Dawn of the (Walking) Dead", which is the story of a funny bet (actually, not funny for the eventual loser) between Straker and the arrogant Vampire Thant - I played more of the shunted ones, initially those I had a soft spot for, say, Mirlanda, because she looks so utterly mental and is such a nice mix of useless starting skill (advanced Wisdom in the Fortress) and lottery, going from that to the worst of the bad.
There was a challenge in that.
|
|
Gandalf196
Disgraceful
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2022 01:54 PM |
|
|
|
NimoStar
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Modding the Unmoddable
|
|
posted June 04, 2022 06:56 AM |
|
Edited by NimoStar at 06:58, 04 Jun 2022.
|
Quote:
I mean, why would I play a game when I know exactly what I have to pick to win.
You contradict yourself. With less enviromental factors and perfect information and less/no random comes less uncertainty.
With less uncertainty, it's more safe what to pick to win.
The random factor is there to create new situations, new contingencies all the time - Ones you have to respond with new thinking.
If "you know every possible move" then there is no new thinking. There is only predictability.
Is original H3 unbalanced? Of course. It is like 25 years old. IDeally values and functions would be tweaked for better balance. And many mods do just that.
In theory, an unbalanced game can easily be fixed.
However a game which lacks enviromental features can't easily be switched around.
(as a note, however, there is a Half-Life 1 mod that randomizes all weapons and enemies each playthrough...)
But that isn't what is being discussed here. What is being discussed is the replayability of a perfect information predictable game vs one with unpredictable enviromental factors.
And the second is obviously more replayable.
I mean, both H3 and Minecraft despite being various levels of old, have obviously a high level of replayability.
Will "deterministic" SoC keeping that philosophy still be played aftyer 10, 20 years? Not very likely...
____________
Never changing = never improving
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 04, 2022 10:36 AM |
|
|
Chess= Zero chance factor, pure strategy. (Except for picking the white king to start and unless you weigh in the human factor, how your opponent can get tired, distracted etc. etc.)
Poker= The longer you (can) play, it’s more about strategy and less about luck. It’s obviously not a game of random chance.
Heads or tails= Pure chance.
H3 is closer to poker in this regard and you can get dealt a very bad hand here or there every once in a while. Yet, a better strategist will have better chance and ratio of surviving such situations. There is also the risk of even losing with a straight flush, although, it’s minimal.
Btw, strategy and gambling are certainly not mutually exclusive concepts.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2022 03:31 PM |
|
|
SoC isn't deterministic.
Why would I discuss a game with someone who hasn't played it?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
